AFHRL-TR-75-8

SELF-PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF STUDENT PILOTS ELIMINATED FROM UNDERGRADUATE

PILOT TRAINING

By

Edward E. Eddowes Norman W. King

FLYING TRAINING DIVI Williams Air Force Base, Arizona 85224

July 1975 Interim Report for Period April 1973 - April 1974

■

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND BROOKS AIR FORCE BASEJEXAS 78235

■■■.-■:;.■. -■ ■ ■-.:. lJ$j ■■

.•.

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

A

NÜTICL

When US Government drawings, specificatiuns, or other data are used Idi any purpose other than a delmilely related Govemmenl prueuieinent operation, the (loveninient thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any othei person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manulacture. use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

This interim report was submitted by Flying Training Division, Air Force Human Resources laboratory, Williams Air Force Base, Arizona 85224, under project 1123, with lk| Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AI'SC). Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/or public release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) In accordance with AFR 1 l)0-l 7 and DoDD 5230.9, There Is no objection to unlimited distribution of this icport to the public at large, or by DOC to the National Technical Information Service (NT1S).

Til is technical report has been reviewed and is approved.

WILLIAM V.HAGIN, Technical Director Flying Training Division

Approved for publication.

HAROLD li. FISCHER, Colonel, USAF Cormnandei

y

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whtn D«(« Entrmd)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

REPpPIT NUMBER

/#-AFHRLTR-75-8 ^

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3, RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

(V TITLE (and Submit)

|7 SELF-PERCEiVED PROBLEMS OF STUDENT PILOTS ELIMINATED FROM UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING

5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

I Interim April 11)73 - April 1974

6 PERFOITMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

T. AUTHORr»,)

i y Edward E/Iiddowcs Norman W.yKing

B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfJ)

9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Flying Training Division Air Force Human Resources Laboratory Williams Air Force Base, Arizona 85224

10 PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA ft WORK UNIT-NUUBEHi ..~-~

123051 r-

tt. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Hq Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC) Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

12. REPORT DATE

July 1975 / ,. (

13. NUMBER OF PAGES

14 MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft IDDRESSdl dlllerenl from Cnnlrolllng Olllce) IS. SECURITY CLASS, (ol Ihlmtaporl)-

Unclassified

IS«. DECLASSIFI CATION DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

16 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol IM« Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (al (ho abstract entered In Rlock 20, II dlllerent Irom Report)

IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It neceaaary and Identity by block number)

attrition elimination undergraduate pilot training (UPT) cause of elimination manifestation of apprehension (MOA)

self-initiated elimination (SIE) flying deficiency (FD) medical deficiency (MD) instructor pilot characteristic academic deficiency (ACAD)

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse aide It neceaaary and Identity by block number)

_-jK This report describes how students eliminated from undergraduate pilot training (UPT) perceived the •circumstances leading to their elimination. The objectives of the study were; increased understanding of factors associated with UPT attrition and delineation of prime areas for training research. Personal interviews with 117 eliminees provided information on the similiarities and differences among five categories of attrition (self-initiated elimination (SIE); manifestation of apprehension (MOA); flying deficiency (FD); medical deficiency (MD) and academic deficiency (ACAD). While major problem areas were identified related to learning how to land the aircraft and with student-instructor pilot interactions, inability to acquire pilot skills is not as important a basis for elimination from UPT as are other categories of elimination, such as SIE and^MOA, both of which are assi

DD | JAN 73 1473 ]> EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAQEffh»»' um* Enternd)

Hem 20{rontinuccir " r p - ,/! )

^Avilli a variety of psychnltJgical altrihulcs. It was concluded that ciiminces' perceptions of training problem areas can provide useful informaliun for training program managemenl and can suggest areas for training research.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEfWion Dula Entered)

PREFACE

This report describes the perceptions of students eliminated from the undergraduate pilot training (UPT) program at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona. It presents various factors they believe to have contri- buted to their elimination from UPT. It documents the initial part of a study being conducted by the Flying Training Division of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, under Project 1123, United States Air Force Flying Training Development, Dr. William V. Hagin, project scientist, and Task 112305, Dr. Norman W. King, task scientist. The principal investigators for the period covered by this report were Dr. Edward E. Eddowes and Dr. Norman W. King.

The authors acknowledge the significant contributions of the previous researchers on this task whose work in refining the interview format led to the procedures used to gather the information on which the present report is based. Appreciation is also expressed to Amn Michael J. Fiero, Jr., who assisted in the organization and analysis of the data.

SUMMARY

Problem

Attrition of undergraduate pilot training (HPT) students is a con- cern to the Air Training Command (ATC) because of increa.s'ng training costs and the potential limitations on available candidates for pilot training under an all-volunteer force program. While consideranle data exist on causes, commission sources, and training phases of student attrition (information suitable for production management), little information exists which provides an understanding of attrition from the student's point of view which can be used for modifications of the training program. This study was designed to derive a better understanding of factors associated with attrition and to delineate areas of UPT which could benefit from training research. This report introduces a format for interviewing eliminees and analyzes UPT attrition from the e.liminees' perceptions of their problems.

Approach

Personal interviews were held with students eliminated from UPT. The data obtained in the interviews were organized on the basis of the official cause of elimination. The frequencies of problems or factors perceived as contributing to elimination were categorized according to the five most prevalent causes of UPT attrition: self-initiated elimination (SIE), manifestation of apprehension (MOA), flying deficiency (FD), medical deficiency (MD), and academic deficiency (ACAD).

Results

Information from the study is presented in a series of tables following the interview format. Similarities and differences in student perceptions of problems as a function of cause of elimination are noted and discussed briefly. The contents of the tables provide suggestions which may be evaluated on their merits in considering prospective modifications of training procedures.

Conclusions

Relative to the objective of improving understanding of factors related to UPT attrition, the results indicate that: (1) psychological factors are found more frequently in UPT student attrition than the inability to acquire pilot skills, (2) instructor pilot (IP)-student interaction Is an important factor in student attrition, and (3) specific characteristics of UPT can be identified as sources of student irritation.

Relative to the objective of defining areas which could profit from training research: (1) The student-IP interactions were identified as an area which could benefit from research, and (2) the interview method, while effective as a research data gathering technique, is expensive and a more economical operational method should be sought.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1. Introduce tun 5

II. Method 6

III. Results and Discussion 6

IV. Conclusions 19

V. Recommendations 20

References 2J

Appendix A: Elimination Interview Format 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Category of Elimination by Class at Williams Air

Force Base, Arizona from 5 April 1973 to 29 April 197A 8

2 Average Number of UPT Flying Hours Prior to Elimination 9

3 Frequency of Reasons for Entering UPT 9

A Perceived Problems Leading to Elimination 10

5 Student Perceptions of Their Own Weakness in Training Prior to Elimination 12

6 Sources of Help Sought in Dealing with Problems Which Led to Elimination 12

7 Perceptions of Instructor Pilot Effective Teaching Characteristics 1A

8 Perceptions of Instructor i'i lot Ineffective Teaching Characteristics 1A

9 Perceptions of Instructor Pilot Capability to Grade Progress and Ability Accurately 16

10 Requests for Instructor Pilot Change 16

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Tab 1 e 11 Perceptions of Specific Irritants in UPT Program. . . .

Page 17

12 Proposed Changes In UPT if EJiminee Were "General for a Day" 19

SELF-PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF STUDENT PILOTS ELIMINATED FROM UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAIN I NO

I. INTRODUCTION

The attrition of students during undergraduate pilot training (UPT) is a continuing problem in Air Force flying training. It has been esti- mated that 27 percent of the candidates selected for UPT will fail to complete the training program (Mission Analysis, 1972). The current attrition rate is 23.3 percent (ATC Management Summary, 1974). The concern lies in part in the cost of attrition, in 1971, the average expenditure on each student who was eliminated from UPT was estimated at $16,000 (Mission Analysis, 1972). This was at a time when Air Training Command (ATC) estimated its cost per graduate at $75,000. The present cost per graduate is estimated to be $167,000 (ATC Management Summary, 1974). If the cost of attrition has increased proportionally with the cost of training, then attrition now costs ATC $35,000 for each eliminated student.

in addition to the cost of attrition, there is also concern about the availaoility of candidates for pilot training; particularly in this era of the all volunteer Air Force. Any severe limitation of candidate avail- ability may make the loss of one student in four an untenable elimination ratio.

In documenting attrition in UPT, the Air Force uses a systematic approach which considers attrition in terms of: (1) the cause of elimina- tion, (2) the source of commission, and (3) the phase of training during . which elimination occurred. These broad categories provide perspectives to aid in management of the UPT program.

An alternative approach to understanding attrition considered in this study is to identify aspects of the UPT program most often associated with attrition, particularly, attrition related to training or motivational problems, implementation of such an approach will generate information which can be used to define modifications of the training program to increase training production without concomitant reduction of training quality or prohibitive increases in training costs. The objective of this study is to derive a better understanding of factors associated with UPT attrition and to delineate those areas of the UPT program which could benefit from training research.

The specific purpose of this report is threefold: (1) to analyze UPT attrition in terms of the students' perceptions of the factors in- volved in their elimination, (2) to present the method used for gathering data from students eliminated from UPT at Williams AFB, Arizona, and (3) to pinpoint those characteristics of training which art unnecessarily difficult aud those which may be significantly demotivating.

11. METHDD

Types of Data. The data presented in this report are of two types: (1) factual information of a student pilot's elimination from UPT, and (2) student pilot self-perceived information. The factual information was obtained from the 82d Flying Training Wing, Williams Air Force Rase, Arizona. It reports the cause of elimination, the number of training hours completed by the student, and the source of his commission.

The student's self-perceptions were obtained In an interview with the eliminated student. In this interview, the student reported his perceptions of personal and circumstantial factors associated with his elimination. A copy of the interview format is presented In Appendix A.

Sample. One-hundred-seventeen students, eliminated from the UPT program at Williams AFB, were Interviewed by one or the other of the two authors during the period from 2 April 1973 to 29 April 1974. They were scheduled for an interview, as soon as possible, following conclusion of the official elimination process.

Procedures. Each ellminee was contacted and scheduled for an inter- view. The interviews were conducted in private and In an informal manner to put the eliminated student at ease. Each ellminee was given an explana- tion of the research value of his perceptions of the difficulties he ex- perienced. He was assured that the contents of the interview would be kept strictly confidential and be used for research purposes only. It was requested that he be ap candid as possible in presenting his views of factors related to h;s elimination. He was encouraged to talk spontaneously about his experiences in UPT. The Interview format was followed to Insure coverage of the desired information during the interview.

HI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the presentation of the findings of the study, attention will he focused on the two types of information obtained from the students; the factual and the self-perceived. The first two tables deal primarily with the facts supplied by the 82d Flying Training Wing. Following presentation and discussion of this information, findings from the students' self- perceptions of factors involved in their elimination are presented. The results are presented in the same sequence as the questions asked during the interview. The interview information is categorized on the basis of the official causes of elimination. Where differences among categories are apparent, they are noted and discussed. Otherwise, interviewer inter- pretative comments have not been added to the subjective information obtained in the interview. This practice is intended to avoid going beyond the data and to eliminate unwarranted psychologizing on the information given. Primarily, the purpose of the discussion of the results is to provide a more adequate picture of the meaning of the facts given in the tables.

Table 1 presents the distribution of categories of elimination of the 117 student pilots eliminated from U?T at Williams AFB, Arizona, from 5 April 1973 to 29 April 1974. The distribution is categorized by fiscal year class number and by cause of elimination.

While practically all the attrition which occurred during the indi- cated time period is included In the statistics, only in classes 7^-04 through 75-01 are the total number of eliminees in a class fully represented. This is because eliminees in the sample from classes prior to 74-04 occurred late in the UPT program and eliminees in the sample from classes after 75-01 represent those which occurred early in the UPT program. This fact is important in understanding pattern of attrition observed in the present study. Some trends which characterize attrition can be noticed in these early and late program classes. Eliminations for manifestation of appre- hension (MOA) and self -tnitiated eliminations (SIE) tend to occur relatively early in UPT; elimination for flying deficiency (FD) usually occur later in UPT. These trends are suggested in Table 1 and are further emphasized by Table 2, which showc that the average number of flying hours accumulated in UPT by students eliminated for flying deficiency is much higher than for any other cause of elimination.

The remaining tables (3 through 12) present self-perception informa- tion obtained from the interview. It should be noted that often there are more entries in these tables in each elimination category than there are eliminees. This is because some eliminees made more than one response to a question. Since only one student was eliminated for academic failure, this category is not listed in the tables.

The reasons given for entering UPT (classified by category of elimina- tion) are presented in Table 3. It can be r 'en that the desire to be a pilot is cjearly the predominant reason for entering UPT. Other factors were of relatively m.nor importance and did not appear to differentiate between the categories of elimination except with SIE and MOA eliminees who frequently rep'.rted recruiter emphasis and unavailability of other kinds of assignmtrts.

In Table 4, th£- problems cited by the eliminees which led to their elimination are shown according to the cause of elimination. This table indicates that there are different problems reported by SIE, MOA and FD eliminees. The self-initiated eliminees report a class of problems that might be characterized as the result of declining or negative affective/ motivational reactions to their UPT experiences. The MOA eliminees reported some of the same problems as the SIE's but were specifically and distinctly different in their citing of fear of flying, airsickness and nervousness, sleeplessness and loss of appetite. FD eliminees more frequently reported problems with their flying performance such as with aircraft control and skills related to landing the aircraft.

Some FD eliminees noted airsickness as a problem in their elimination. With most such eliminees, the problem was not the fact of being airsick,

but rather its negative impact on the student's ability to use his flying time effectively. He would fall behind with his flying training because

t_

CO C o N

<

0) U) 0) oa

u 1-1 o

< -a

rH Ui •H a 3 < 4-J i^ <H (N

V) O in i-i «

^H m U r^.

cr. i^-i

J3 ^H

c •H 0 u

•H c •M <d nj C m

•H a 0

•H O rH l-i u U-l

o

>-. 1-1 0 00 01 u rt u

u

P- o

in <t

in fi

in (Ni r- o

r> o

w <t VD m r^. O «

rH u

1 <r m r^ O

1-1 n) 0)

>H 1 <f <T

^H r^ O nj o yi

•H 1 fx< <r m

r<- o

1 <N

r^ o

r- o

r- o

r^ CO r-i rv) Ovl rH

O C

m 00 O r^ o

a 0

•rH LW U 0

C 0) •H m 3 d •H w n) rH M u W t/J

00

o n

tw o in

o oo

ro O 00

O rH CN

O O 0^ Ol

00

o o

O rg

o o o

o o

O rH

p <; H

g ^ g

Table 2. Average Number of UPT Flying Hours Prior to EllmtnatI on

Phase of Training Cause of Eliml nation N T-41a T-37 T-38 Total

SIE 49 1.0 28.2 2.0 31.2 MOA 27 1.4 12.8 0.0 14.2 FD 28 4.8 52.2 15.0 72.2 m 12 2.0 23.2 9.9 35.1 ACAD 1 0.0 49.0 0.0 49.0

'T-41 training at Williams AFB was discontinued starting with Class 74-05.

Table 3. Frequency of Reasons for Entering UPT

Category of Elimination Reasons for Entering UPT SIE MOA FD MED

Desire to Fly Recruiter Emphasized Flying Training Preferred Another AF Job But Not Available Air Force was Best Service Choice in Face of

Being Drafted Training to Prepare for Future Nor.-AF Career Like Air Force Benefits Could Not Get Suitable Civilian Job Commitment to Serve Country

Note. Frequencies often exceed the number of students in a category since one student may give more than one reason for entering UPT.

30 20 22 12 12 1 3 0

9 7 3 0

4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

•■?.

Table A. Perceived Problems Leading to Elimination

Category of Elimination

Perceived Problems Leading to Elimination SIE MOA FC MED

Lack or Loss of Motivation 33 5 1 Didn't Like Flying or Being a Pilot 19 1 Felt Degraded as Student 17 1 Time on Flight Line Too Long 1A Too Much Pressure 13 7 6 Rewards Not Worth Effort 12 Program Too Narrowing—Restrictive 12 Negative Attitudes of Instructor Pilots 10 7 Didn't Like Military Life 9 Loss of Confidence 7 4 14 Personal or Family Problems 7 4 Decided on Another Career 7 Commitment Too Long 5 Physical Problems 3 Frightened by Flying 3 7 Draft Avoidance 3 Frequent Airsickness 12 6 Nervousness, Sleeplessness, Loss of Appetite 12 Pre-Solo Landings 5 16 Final Turn and Approaci 13 Precision in Aircraft Control 11 Was Behind Aircraft 10 Landing Pattern Work 10 Instructor Pilot Change 6 Discontinuity (Weather) 5 Problems with Cross Check in Instrument

Scanning 5 Discontinuity (Illness) 4 Poor Judgment 4 Poor Check-Ride Performance 4 Injuries 3 Visual Defects 3 Other Physical Defects 5 Mental Instability 1

10

of lost last ruction and the discontinuities in his flying schedule due to being grounded following an actively airsick episode. Two other problems frequently reported by FD ellminees may also be seen as primarily related to flying performance problems, loss of confidence and negative IP attitudes. Loss of confidence can be interpreted as the inevitable result of nonsuccess. The negative attitude of the IP in part mav be seen as the result of the student's relatively poor performance, and Its effect might be an Instance of the self-fulfilling prophecy In which the IP-student interactions go from critical to negative as the student continues to have flying performance problems.

The problem of too much pressure was cited relatively often by SIE, MOA, and FD ellminees. In the case of the SIF, too much pressure was reacted to negatively, contributing to the eliminee|s decision to discon- tinue flight training. The typical MOA reaction to the pressure was Increased nervousness. The student having problems with his flying perfor- mance responded to the pressure by Increasing his efforts to overcome the problems, thus creating more pressure and an increased likelihood that it would interfere with his already marginal performance level.

Wlüle these reactions to the pressure of the UPT program tended to be different, the pressure was real and, to a great extent, an intrinsic aspect of the program in which 210 hours of flight training and 263 hours of academic instruction are packaged into a period of approximately A8 to 52 weeks (Class 7A-07 (75-01) took 58 weeks due to fuel crisis "stretchout"). Considering the fact that about 12 liours of every working day is scheduled for training activities, it is not surprising tiiat UPT students experience varying degrees of pressure and that about 25% of the ellminees interviewed in the present study reported It as a factor leading to their elimination.

Student perceptions of their own flying training performances prior to their elimination are shown in Table 5. The highest frequency items are the "no problem or average performance" responses of SIE and MOA ellminees and the "not applicable responses" of all categories of elimina- tion. There were more indications of no particular problems and, at the same time, more specific problems cited by the SIE's. There were about the same number of no problem and specific problem responses by MOA and FD ellminees. The data reported by the SIE's are very difficult to interpret unless it is related to the fact that the SIE, because he determines that he wishes to discontinue flying training rather than have the system determine that he cannot continue. Is stimulated to find reasons for his elimination as a way of supporting his request. Whatever the basis for the difference between SIE responses and those of MOA, FD, and MD ellminees shown in Table 5, it suggests that SIE's are different from the other ellminees Interviewed during the present study with respect to their perceptions of their own flying performances.

In Table 6, the sources of help sought by the ellminees in dealing with the problems that led to their elimination are shown in relation to

category of elimination. The data of this table reflect primarily the different kinds of elimination.

11

Tab 1e 5. Student Perceptions of Their Own Weakness in Training Prior to Elimination

Specific Weakness (Self-Perceived)

None or Average (Satisfactory) Performance

Landings (Pre and Post Solo) Academics Inslruments Problems While 111 Procedures Area Work Mid-Phase Check General Weaknesses Cross-Check P a 11 e m Aircraft Control Not Applicable or None Indicated

Category of Elimination

SIE MOA FD MED

32 10

h 2 2 1 1 1

18

12 3

2 14 10

Table 6. Sources of Help Sought In Dealing with Problems Which Led to Elimination

Sources of Help Sought During Problems

Category of Elimination

SIE MOA FD MED

Class commander Peers Wife (or Family) Instructor Pilot Student Section Leader Flight Commander Other IPs No One Chaplin Psychiatrist Flight Surgeon Military Sources Outside UPT

26 8 2 5 16 2 12 15 14 13 15 1 10

9 7 8 5 9 4 3 1 2 2 1 17 2 12

2

. -^.-. _—I..

12

, r>_ i /

The SIE tended to decide on his own to discontinue his flying training and then contact his IP, class commander, and flight commander to inform them of his decision. The MOA and MI) eliminee, on the other hand, always contacted the flight surgeon who consulted with the student until a cause for elimination ' ecause of manifestations of apprehension or medi- cal deficiency could he determined and validated. The FD eliminee also had a routine sequence of contacts typically beginning with his IP as serious flying problems developed, and continuing upward through the chain of supervision and command until the elimination was confirmed by action of a faculty hoard review of the facts of the case.

In this set of data, it is again clear that the SIE's were different from the other categories of eliminees in the high frequency of contacts with a wider variety of sources of help they reported. The kinds of comments SIE's made during the elimination interview suggested, but did not explicitly state, that the contacts with sources of help may have been made to convince the student that his decision to eliminate himself was not the wrong one. It should be noted that several MOA eliminees, particularly from class 7^-05, reported comments indicating that they may have been seeking similar confirmation of their elimination circum- stances; for example, that their airsickness was in fact a valid basis for thei r eliminat i on.)

The eliminees' perceptions of their IP's effective teaching character- istics are shown in Table 7, broken down according to category of elimina- tion. Inspection of Table 7 does not suggest any dramatic or provocative differences between the various categories of eliminations. The three most frequently mentioned effective teaching characteristics of IP's are cited as often by all four categories of eliminees.

In Table 8, students' perceptions of their IPs' ineffective teaching characteristics are presented according to category of elimination. Here again, the table does not suggest marked differences among the categories of eliminations except for the relatively high frequency report by FD eliminees that their IP was a poor or inexperienced teacher, destroyed their confidence, and did not praise them for their flying accomplishments. There are no indications that the IPs of the FD students were different from or less experienced than the IPs of students in other categories of attrition. The indications are that the FD eliminees remained in the program long enough to be influenced by whatever teaching weakness an IP might have.

The tendency of some FD eliminees to be critical of their IP's was limited to those students who tended to blame the UPT system for their failure, rather than acknowledging their own contribution in the chain of events leading to the FD elimination. Not all FD eliminees perceived their IP critically in this manner, but those who did tended to report similar experiences during training.

Student perceptions of their IP's ability to grade their progress

and performance accurately are presented in Table 9 by category of ellmir

tion. While Table 9 does not reveal substantial differences based on the

13

Tab Ig 7. Perceptions of Instructor Pilot Kffective Teaching Charac tertsti cs

Ef fect i ve Charac teris t i cs

Category of Elimination

SIE MOA FD MED

Good Pi lot. PersoneJ Interest in Student Fantastic IP--Good Guy Excellent De-Briefs Expected Quality Performance Treated Student With Respect Enthusiasm for Job Good Pre-Briefs Calm, Relaxed Praise for Things Done Well No Screamer, Yeller Good Demonstrat ions--Good Teacher Experienced (Not a Recent UPT Graduate) Bui It Confidence Let Student Make Mistakes

21 13 8 2 13 /. 5 2 10 7 12 4 8 1 2 8 6 1 5 3 1 1. 3 6 8 2 2 2 1 2 3

8 3 7 6 1 A

Table 8. Perceptions of Instructor Pilot ineffective Teaching Characteristics

Ineffective Characteristics Category of Elimination

SIE MOA FD MED

Screamer or Yeller Demanded Too Much Precision Student-IP Relationship Too Formal Not Enough Time For Student Lack of Enthusiasm-Interest Personality Conflict Degraded Student Poor or Inexperienced Teacher Stick Cranber Sarcast1c Talked Too Much During Flight Too Protective Poor Attitude Pre-Briefs Impatient Destroyed Self-Confidence All Criticism—No Praise For

Accomplishments

8 4 7 8 5 7 3 3 6 6 4 1 6 4 5 A 3 4 A 2 11 4 3 I 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2

3 5 7

2

10

14

various types of elimination, the comments of FD ellminees who were critical of -their IP and unwilling to accept responsibility for their failure clearly indicated that they did not think their IP could grade their flying performances accurately. In this regard, the FD eliminees were notably, if not vastly, different from the other types of eliminees.

Requests for change of IP are shown in Table 10 by category of elimination. Table 10 reveals that relatively few of the eliminees interviewed requested a change of IP. Those who requested a change of IP were predominantly FD eliminees who reported a personality conflict or believed they weren't learning as reasons for their request. This is another aspect of FD eliminee-lP difficulty noted previously in discussing the data of Tables 8 and 9.

The specific sources of irritation in UPT as perceived and reported by the 117 eliminees interviewed in this study are shown in Table 11 according to category of elimination. Inspection of Table 11 immediately reveals a long list of irritants and suggests relatively more responses by the eliminees than with other items in the interview. The 49 SlE's interviewed identified 104 irritants in 20 different categories. The 28 MOA eliminees reported 57 irritants in 13 different categories. The 27 FD eliminees interviewed reported 45 Irritants in 12 categories. The 12 MD eliminees generated 14 complaints in 7 categories of irritants. It can be seen in Table 10 that the number and kinds of irritants reported by the eliminees interviewed are in approximate proportion to the number of different types of eliminees in the sample.

The most frequently occurring complaints appeared to be a function of: (1) Characteristics of the program which the eliminated student found undesirable; for example, wasted hours on the flight line; poor study environment on the flight line and the fast-paced (pressure pro- ducing) program; and (2) Characteristics of the program which departed from the ellminee's concept of how he would be treated as a person; for example, IP attitude, stand-up briefing harassment, and the generally degrading treatment the student pilots experienced.-^

The perceptions of Che eliminees reported in Table 11 are paralleled by the perceptions of UPT training managers and IP's who express these beliefs: (1) That the characteristics of UPT should challenge the student pilots because the challenges of UPT furnish minimum preparation for those a pilot will encounter after he graduates; and (2) That the way students are treated is an effective training technique designed to insure personal toughness and discipline in the face of a variety of obstacles since the tough, disciplined, obstacle defeating pilot is the only kind the Air Force is interested in having. These reactions are not often verbalized, but are frequently encountered in discussing the perceptions of eliminated students with UPT training managers and IP's.

15

Table 9. Perceptions of Instructor Pilot Capability to Grade Progress and Ability Accurately

iP Accuracy/Reason for Inaccuracy

YES NO

Lack of Standardization Graded Limited by Syllabus Too Lenient Grades Used to Motivate Too Hard

Category of Elimination SIE MO A FD MED

28 18 15 3 21 9 13 3

8 3 1 8 2 4 2 A A 3 1 3 1 2 2 .10

Table 10. Requests for Instructor Pilot Change

Irritation Sources

Category of Elimination SIE MO A FD MD

Reasons for Requesting INSTRUCTOR PILOT CHANGE

Was Not Learning Personality Conflict

Reasons for Not Requesting INSTRUCTOR PILOT CHANGE

Felt It Would Prejudice Training Had Changes Without Request None Needed (IP —OK) Not Applicable or Not Indicated

A 2 6 0 10 4 8 2

8 2 0 2 25 15 2 8

16

■

r^^^wir«

able 11. Perceptions of Specific Irritants in UPT Program

Category of Elimination Specific Irritants in UPT Training SIE _ MOA FD MED

Wasted Hours on Flight Line 25 10 5 A Students Degraded as Officers 11 12 3 Poor Attitude and Sarcasm of IPs 10 6 3 2 Flight Line Unsuitable for Study 9 6 4 Stand-up Briefing 6 A 5 1 T-AO Program 6 Program Moves Too Fast (Pressures) A 9 3 Physical Training Program A 5 3 1 Delays In Receiving Relevant Publications A Formal Dismissal from Flight Line A A 12 Unfair, Subjective, Overstandardized

Grading A 1 Military Regulations and Restrictions,

e.g., haircuts 3 Bias Against Single Officers 3 2 Memorization In Academics Testing 3 5 1 Program C.J ared to Students

with Previous Flying Experience 2 Competition Among Students 2 Marginal Status 1 Early Morning Report Time/Weekly

Schedule Rotation 12 3 Learning Center 1 Poor Quality of BOQ Housing 1 1 Punishment, Threat, Discipline Oriented

Training 2 Scheduling Discontinuities 1 A Flight Simulator Instructors 1 BOO Inspections 1

17

Changes in UI'T proposed by the eliminees Interviewed are presented in Table 12 by category of elimination. As was the case with the sources of irritation in Table 11, there were a wide varietv as well as a large number of different suggestions for improvement reported. The ^9 SIE's made 106 suggestions in 20 different categories. The 27 MOA eliminees produced 2tj suggestions in 12 categories. The 28 FD eliminees generated ■^0 proposed improvements in 13 categories. Tbv 12 MKD eliminees reported 10 suggestions in five categories. Generally, the number and kinds of proposed improvements were proportional to the number and category of eliminees interviewed, with the exception of the FD eliminees who re- ported relatively more proposed improvements than complaints.

It should be noted that the responses of many of the eliminees to the hypothetical proposition: "What would you change in UFT if you were general for a day?" elicited suggested changes that often were unrelated to the irritants reported by the individual eliminee. This observation indicates that the proposed changes were not an eliminee's attempt to assign responsibility for his elimination to UFT and to further emphasize this by recommending an appropriate change in the irritating portion of the program. The content of the suggested changes may thus be evaluated on their merits, with some confidence, that they represent the serious consideration of the eliminees rather than simply a form of psychological compensation.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of the present study were to derive a better under- standing of factors associated with UFT attrition at Williams AFB during the period from 4 April J973 to 29 April ]974, and to delineate those areas of the UFT program which could benefit from training research.

With respect to the first objective, of achieving Improved under- standing of factors related to UFT attrition, the results suggest the following conclusions:

L. Inability to acquire pilot skills is not nearly as important a basis for a student pilot's elimination from UFT as are other cate- gories of elimination, such as SIE and MOA, both of whigh are associated with a wide variety of psychological attributes.

2. A number of characteristics of UFT appear to have a marked effect on a student pilot's decision to eliminate himself from flyinb training (SIE) that are not perceived in the same way by student pilots in other categories of elimination.

3. Many eliminated students did not report that they perceived w-'akresses in their own flying performance prior to their elimination, while those who did perceive weaknesses often reported problems with learning to land the aircraft.

18

Table 12. Proposed Changes in UPT if Eliminee Were "General for a Day"

Category of Elimination Proposed Changes in UPT SIE MOA FD MED

Lengthen Program 12 Improve Treatment of Officer Student 11 3 3 Give T-^l Training 10 1 2 Eliminate Harassment-Inspections of BOQ 9 12 Reduce Long Flight Line Hours 8 2 2 Institutr- Self-Paced Program 6 2 7 Make Flight Line Conducive to Study 6 A 3 Reduce Pressure in Program 6 Reduce Use of Formal Dismissal from

Flight Line 6 3 2 2 Have Recruiters Give More Accurate

Picture of UPT 5 Foster Better Relationships between

IP's and Students 5 6 Improve Integration of Academics

and Flying Program A 2 Improve IP Morale 3 3 2 Issue Publications As Soon As Possible 3 1 Use Simulators More 3 Improve BOQ Living Conditions 3 Provide Alternative Entries into AF 2 Use Experienced Pilots as IP's 2 Require Physical Training on the Basis

of Performance 1 A Educatiorioi.1. Psychology Course for IP 12 Improve Learning Center 1 1 A Decent Cafeterias 1 3 Don't Train All Students for Fighters 2 Better Screening 2 2

19

A. Eliminated students in all categories perceived the following effective teaching characteristics in their IP's: he was a good pilot, he took a personal interest in the student, was a "good guy," and was calm and relaxed.

5. The eliminees perceived, as inefiective, these IP teaching characteristics: he was a "screamer," he demanded too much precision, was too formal in his interactions with students, didn't have enough time for his students, and was unenthusiastic.

6. Wasted time on the flight line, degrading treatment of students and the IP's poor attitude toward the student were perceived frequently as specifically irritating characteristics of UPT by many students in all categories of elimination.

With respect to the second objective, of identifying areas which could benefit from training research, the results appear to warrant the following conclusions:

1. The Air Training Command IP and IP-student pilot interactions is an area which could benefit from further study.

2. The interview method used in this research effort is effective but uneconomical in terms of use of researcher time; therefore, less time-consuming methods should be developed for obtaining this kind of information from student pilots.

3. Because of the uncertain interpretation of much of the data reported here, similar information on the perceptions of student pilots who successfully complete UPT should be collected to serve as the basis for comparison with the perceptions of eliminated students to clarify their meaning more adequately.

A. Due to the limitations of resources available for accomplishing the present, research, data were collected only at Williams AFB. To define the limits of the generalizability of the results obtained, the perceptions of UPT eliminees should be recorded at additional UPT bases.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In view of the apparent impact the student pilot's perceptions of how he is treated during UPT has on his decision to continue his flying training, it is recommended that study of student pilot perceptions be conducted on a continuing basis throughout Air Training Command and that the resulting information be furnished Flying Training Wing Commanders for their use in optimizing the effectiveness of the UPT program.

2. Because of the importance of the effect of the IP on the student pilot, it is recommended that research be Initiated to identify ways to improve the effectiveness and quality of IP-student pilot interactions.

20

REFERENCES

ATC ManagemenL Summary, Operations Sectlo.i, Oct 1974, Air Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 1974.

Mission Analysis on Future Undergraduate Pilot Training: 1975 through 1990. AFSC-TR-72-001, Vols I, II, V, AD 9002A0, Mission Analysis Study Group, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 1972.

21

■

rTtECEDIRl PAGE BLANK-NüT FILMLED

AI'PENDIX A: ELIMINATION INTERVIEW FORMAT

Obtain information for items L-6 from elimination letter.

1. Name & Grade: 2. SSAN:

3. Date of Interview 4. Class:

5. Cause of Elimination: (Circle one)

FD MOA SIE MED ACAD ADMIN

6. Phase Eliminated from:

T-Al; it hours . T-37; // hours . T-38; // hours .

Tell student that:

This interview is strictly confidential.

It in no way nleans your case is being reconsidered or re-evaluated.

7. Commission Source: OTS ROTC AFA OTHER (Specify)

8. Amount of prior time: hours (Not including T-41)

9. Prior service: (e.g., was student ever enlisted).

10. Are you married?

Dependents:

Do you have any older brothers or sisters?

11. What school did you graduate from?

What was your major field of study?

Did you consider trying to get a job in the Air Force which made use of your education?

What happened?

Do you have extensive experience in operating complex mcchintiry? For example, farm equipment, construction equipment.

23

Do you have extensive experience in athletic competition? If so, what sport(s) and what kind of experience?

12. Do you think you could briefly summarize the events which led to your elimination?

Were you weak in a previous phase on anything?

13. Whom In particular did you go to for help when you knew you had a problem?

How did they react?

Was your wife/family worried about your flying?

On the whole, was there anything unusual about the process by which you were eliminated?

24

14. Tell me about the good and bad points of your Instructors. What was his technique in flight? Were his pre- and de- briefs thorough?

GOOD BAD

T-AI

T-37

T-38

How would you rate your IPs on their ability to grade your progress? Did their grades accurately reflect your ability?

GOOD BAD

T-Al

T-37

T~38

Did you ever request an IP change? If so, why? If not and you were in trouble, why not?

T-Al

T-37

T-38

25

5. What aspects of the training/academic program would you specifically identify as Irritahle?

If you were "General for a day," in what way would you change (add to or detract from) the training or academic program?

16. Did you know what UPT was going to he ^ke?

If so, how did it compare to your prior expectations?

How would you prepare for UPT if you could do it once again?

17. Additional Comments: (For example, what is student's next assignment?)

Credibility Rating; Did the student appear to be honest or did he appear to be holding something back?

Could you have predicted that this student was going to be eliminated? How early?

26 AUS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975- 671-602/800J

r '■•'.. ■> '